Some thoughts on Severance S2 and the use of romance as a theme with @infestedguest on Tumblr:

infestedguest: I think that meta may have partially healed the hole the lack of focus on platonic relationships + MDR in general outside of Mark/Helly (especially Irv) this season has left in my heart. Like, most of your S2 metas do that at least a little bit anyway (especially that one about S2E4), but it’s especially potent in this one.

infestedguest: I might just be talking out of my ass, but in a way, Mark Scout trying to convince Mark S to end his life in the S2 finale is an inversion/perversion of that repeated theme of “loved enough to die for.” Mark S isn’t a person and thus is automatically not loved enough to not die for the sake of Gemma’s safety and Mark Scout’s happy ending. Mark Scout loves his wife enough to lead someone else to die for her. But also Mark Scout still, at least in some ways, genuinely conceptualizes his innie as just a part of himself, and it’s there that there’s an element of the straightforward “loved enough to die for.

binomech: I’m very happy to hear that! I’ve been struggling with that too (for family abolitionist reasons and generally love for anything that exists outside of the permitted main text of what love can be under capital), but I think this was kind of deliberate from the script. other things, maybe not, but the fact that the both Marks are manipulated through their monogamous romantic interests, but also the Dylans (economically and as a way to pull him away from loving fellow innies as people), even Irving (he’s allowed to know about Burt because they need him out of the house and the point is to get him or both of them killed anyway; it’s never framed positively, but it’s still using the promise of romantic love as fish bait), but it doesn’t mean the rest isn’t there.

infestedguest: I think it’s likely that it was deliberate, and there are definitely interesting dimensions added by it, and I agree the rest is definitely still there, but I think the focus on romance at certain points distracts from many of the other themes of the show to the point where it becomes a hindrance in a way that does not feel purposeful. A major example of this is how Miss Casey’s entire presence in the S2 finale is reduced to a single joke, with zero acknowledgment of her personhood (or even a perceived lack thereof) by either the characters or the narrative of the episode itself, even though Mark S’s “people not parts of people” speech (where the audience was first explicitly introduced to the idea of innies conceptualizing themselves as their own people) was made to her, about her. There was a clear setup to do something interesting with her character, but they just chose to completely ignore it, which, while not unusual, feels very strange in this particular case to me because of the major role she plays in the finale + the setup that was already there + how incongruous just ignoring her feels with the thesis of personhood the finale makes clear. But she and Mark S are on the side of the Gemma/Mark square with the least romantic angst potential, and I don’t want to be cynical, but I think that may have contributed to the lack of focus they and, by extension, she gets in the finale (as well as in S2 as a whole). They might address this in S3, but in my opinion, S1 + S2 should be able to stand on their own, and not even hinting at it in S2 leaves a major hole in the themes of the show. Sorry, it probably sounds like I hate S2; I promise I don’t, it’s just really interesting to dig into why what doesn’t work for me doesn’t work.

binomech: I’m 100% with you on this. I understand the individuation season needs, to an extent, that each character gets their own separate screen time with their own separate networks. I think that was an interesting choice. It just so happens that 90% of that was Mark S (and I love Mark S, I’m extremely vocal about how much I love Mark S on this blog, but S1 already had Mark almost exclusively as the outie lens, and I really wish it had been more balanced in S2), and that eats up your budget and your screen time. And then you end up with Gemma and her innies being nothing (which I’m hoping they address in S3, but like you said, I feel like they should stand on their own, especially with S3 not being a guarantee during writing and filming).

binomech: I know that John Turturro wants to come back, and it’s insane to me how he was the only member of the cast, to my knowledge, that was like, “Well, I filmed this with the intention of it standing on its own, but I’m not going to be happy if I don’t get to make more of it because Irving deserves more than this” in public from the get-go. I’ve been seeing Britt Lower and Dichen Lachman also talk about it in these terms since the finale aired, which I appreciate so much, but again. Love the cast, love the effort, but can we get more of this in the actual show?

binomech: So I’m pissed about what they did to Miss Casey in particular and Gemma in general, and Helly as well! Sure, yeah, it’s very compelling to know more about Helena and Helly was the innie lens in S1, but wow. Helly was a plot device for Mark this season even in the plotline about her own bodily autonomy, and it makes me miserable. and I loved Sweet Vitriol, but I need Reghabi and Milchick to get similar levels of attention in regards to their ties to the company, and while I think Milchick might, but I doubt Reghabi will. And that will be, once more, a Petey situation for me where I’ll live forever in my “what could have been” hole. I don’t think they can cleanly reintroduce Petey’s presence in S3 after S2’s complete and absolute sidelining of him (and June and the WMC). or if they do, it might be in the context of Irving Bailiff’s organizing, which would make me happy but would not lessen the disappointment I feel at these choices in S2.

binomech: It’s not bad television, I still love this show; but a big chunk of what made S1 so special and dear to me, which was the extension of solidarity and care between innies because they did not have that societal expectation of hierarchy in relationships (beyond department loyalty due to the quarterly goals being important to prioritize), or seen as people enough to love at all, is just… not there in S2. and it makes sense that in blurring the boundary of severance, societal expectation would suddenly enter the severed floor, but the only time it felt like it was presented in that context was in Dylan’s scenes with Gretchen. And if S3 enters the conversation of why this was necessary but not unambiguously good, then I’ll be elated, but I don’t think I should be having to bargain with this conditional.

infestedguest: No, it makes perfect sense! Those are my feelings as well. Early in S2, it felt like the lack of innie solidarity was a way to demonstrate the way Lumon is dividing them. And I’m not saying it’s not important to highlight that, but its absence takes away the heart of the show and a major pillar of much of its themes, and that tradeoff just isn’t worth it for what we got, imo. Also, I haven’t really looked into BTS material beyond the S2 end of episode bonus features, so it’s cool to hear that some of the actors have at least vaguely similar opinions.

binomech: Episodes 1 through 4 of S2 were very enjoyable to me. Trojan’s Horse was slower by necessity to actively sit with the messes of reintegration and the ORTBO, and I think it did a solid job. I have to confess that Attila and Chikhai Bardo, while obviously relevant in terms of plot content, are the episodes I take up most issue with. When I watch them, I can think of exact lines in which the following scenes could have engaged with the surreptitious cruelties of Lumon more explicitly but then didn’t: Helena stalking Mark Scout at Zufu, Gretchen having become complicit in Dylan G’s alienation to the detriment of both him and her husband (and herself), using Burt’s outie in particular to manipulate Irving Bailiff and potentially manage to get them to kill each other, Gemma’s relationship with being aware of severance, Mauer’s entitlement to all her innies and by extension her, anything about how she ended up on the testing floor. I’m particularly displeased by the framing Mark Scout’s rose-tinted memories of her as the only parts of her worth remembering as something romantic rather than the cruelty it is (especially when most of those moments for her were spent grieving and not having anyone to grieve with because Mark was partaking in his usual avoidant behaviors.) I assume that in sidelining that, the episodes came out cleaner in terms of reception and discrete parallel scenes. Sweet Vitriol and the finale are unequivocal wins for me, but I would’ve liked Sweet Vitriol to be… not a bottle episode, perhaps, because it threw off the pacing. The After Hours is the one that I’m still trying to digest, because each individual scene was incredible, and I enjoyed it, but then when you put them all in a row, it feels like a “We have a million plotlines open; wrap them all up quickly for the finale” sprint.

binomech: I don’t have access to any official materials, and I avoid actively looking up interviews/the podcast, but I was so visibly clawing at the walls that my friends who engage with this kind of thing sent me all the relevant quotes, which I find hilarious. But yeah, in any case, I was very reassured.